View Topic

One of my topics was on Judicial Reform, of which I've been thinking about heavily for the past several months. However such large reform needs to be discussed with the Citizenry First, which is why I have decided to open this topic.

First off the main goal of Judicial Reform is to make the courts a viable option to be used, and also to protect the community from a Rogue Storting by moving some of the near-ultimate authority of the Storting to a Judiciary. I do, however, wish to protect the long-established tradition of our ad-hoc Judiciary System. So I've come up with a few options:

1) Introduce a system of 'Special Panels' and Magistrates.
2) Introduce a system where each branch of Government is represented. (Representative Judicial Panel)
3) Introduce a system where the branches of Government form the entirety of the Judiciary.

I'll go into depth below over these options:

Magistrates and Special Panels

This option would introduce the least amount of change, but would also bring some larger changes to the system.

First off Magistrates would exist, with the Chief Magistrate being appointed by the Monarch and confirmed by the Storting (due to its nature). The Chief Magistrate would be in charge of managing the Magistrates and establishing procedure where there is none for the running of this office.

At the filing of a case, the Chief Magistrate is to appoint a random Magistrate that is uninvolved with the case. The Magistrate would review the case and determine if a Special or Regular panel is to be formed. The Magistrate would also be able to remove people from a petition, or dismiss the petition if it is a repeat of an already decided one. These would be on a case-by-case basis.

After the decision the Chief Magistrate (or the Magistrate over the case, if the Chief Magistrate is a party to the case), would either select the members of the Storting to hear the case or select the members of a Special Panel to hear the case. A Special Panel would be used in the following circumstances:
1) There are not enough members of the Storting that are uninvolved to hear the case
2) The issue is over a conflict between the Fundamental Laws and a law the Storting Passed.
3) The issue is Constitutional in nature.

The Special Panel would be made up of Citizens for the most part (with the rest being selected like a regular panel would be, if possible, and the Chief Justice being appointed by the Chief Magistrate, from the Magistrate list (excluding the original Magistrate). Special Panels would have higher authority over the status of law than the Storting, but otherwise nothing else would change.

This mainly keeps our ad-hoc system, while prevent a run-away Storting from doing too much damage.

Representative Judicial Panels

This idea is a relatively new idea, and would definitely help enshrine the separation of powers within Wintreath, in this idea there would be at least one Justice from each branch (with the Storting potentially getting two, one from the Overhusen and one from the Underhusen).

Each branch would maintain and establish lists of people who can serve as the Justice for that branch, and the person would be randomly selected from that list. Now, the third branch would either be the Administrative 'Branch' (which is somewhat extra-Governmental in nature) or would be selected from the population. (I, personally, lean towards the latter).

If the Storting gets two members then I would increase the Population's members to two, and make the Monarch's appointed Justice the Chief Justice. This would be to balance out the branches, while not making any branch have a clear majority. People may only be a Justice for one branch for a case.

This would introduce wider changes, without changing the overall function of our courts that much, everything else would remain the same, except for higher representation in the Judiciary of our other branches, and also helps enshrine the separation principal a little more, in my opinion.

Large Panels

This is probably the widest sweeping, and probably least effective idea to put here, but it's an idea none-the-less.

This idea would mean that all members of the Storting and the Monarch serve on a Judicial Panel, in addition to a few members randomly selected from the Citizenry. This would make Judicial Panels MUCH bigger than they would be under the other systems, but would be somewhat balanced against each other to prevent any one group from having a Majority (Each vote would be weighted so that no one group could simply vote by themselves and settle the decision. Either two of the groups would have to agree, or all (depending on the implementation)). This means that any decision would have to be a compromise between the two branches, this does do some to enshrine some Wintrean values and principals, and also prevents any branch from being able to impose upon another branch, must like the second idea.

However this does have some drawbacks, namely that of efficiency, as it would be larger and it would include more people (some of which might be a party to the case and thus have to be replaced). I'm not particularly fond this idea, but it is one none-the-less.

Of course, keep in mind that there is the option to just introduce procedural changes to our current system, which would also follow a change with these if it were to occur. There is also the idea of not changing anything, and perhaps some other ideas I haven't exactly considered. I do wish to keep our changes to the current system as much as possible, as it is unique to our region and has stood for nearly five years, but some changes are probably for the best. Also feel free to suggest your own ideas in this field.

You constantly and consistently bring up the bugbear of 'rogue Stortings'. Seeing as you're someone who's consistently on the Storting himself, more often than not as Speaker, I'm opined that this is either fearmongering for the purpose of building a basis by which this move might be approved, or alternatively and significantly less charitably the hyperconservative stance of 'if I'm not on the Storting, it's gone rogue' (which, to be fair, I don't think is the case).
Consider the following: for the vast majority of bills, the UH must seek OH approval. The OH is appointed by the Monarch, who is himself a member of the OH. Any Storting that goes 'rogue' must therefore do so through a process of gaining and then betraying the Monarch's trust, en masse, or else must do so with the implicit, if not outright explicit, consent of the Monarch himself. In the latter case, it cannot possibly be considered 'rogue', since it has monarchical approval, while the former case is so ludicrously unlikely it's not even worth considering.
As such, since the threat of a 'Rogue Storting' is the fundamental basis on which your desire for reform rests, it strikes me this is not worth considering at all. You might argue better safe than sorry, but I would argue that changing legislation on the grounds that a wildly improbable event might possibly occur at some point in the future if everyone involved was completely derelict in their duties isn't worth the time or effort.

You constantly and consistently bring up the bugbear of 'rogue Stortings'. Seeing as you're someone who's consistently on the Storting himself, more often than not as Speaker, I'm opined that this is either fearmongering for the purpose of building a basis by which this move might be approved, or alternatively and significantly less charitably the hyperconservative stance of 'if I'm not on the Storting, it's gone rogue' (which, to be fair, I don't think is the case).
Consider the following: for the vast majority of bills, the UH must seek OH approval. The OH is appointed by the Monarch, who is himself a member of the OH. Any Storting that goes 'rogue' must therefore do so through a process of gaining and then betraying the Monarch's trust, en masse, or else must do so with the implicit, if not outright explicit, consent of the Monarch himself. In the latter case, it cannot possibly be considered 'rogue', since it has monarchical approval, while the former case is so ludicrously unlikely it's not even worth considering.
As such, since the threat of a 'Rogue Storting' is the fundamental basis on which your desire for reform rests, it strikes me this is not worth considering at all. You might argue better safe than sorry, but I would argue that changing legislation on the grounds that a wildly improbable event might possibly occur at some point in the future if everyone involved was completely derelict in their duties isn't worth the time or effort.

It's not necessarily that as well, a Rogue Storting could cause damage to our legal system though, albeit it is unlikely to occur and has not occurred because bad actors have not been elected to the Underhusen (as far as I know). Keep in mind that if a supermajority of bad actors were to be elected to the Underhusen, they could rule by themselves.

Additionally, the current Judidical system has some flaws, some of which are procedural some of which are in its nature. First off is that the Storting itself comprises the Judicial Panel, with two Skrifa and one Peer comprising the Panel. This theoretically lowers the amount of people needed to take over the region (by effectively ruling by Judicial Decision), although I will note that statistically you would probably need entire control of the Underhusen in order to use the Judicial Branch for this purpose (due to the random selection, and the fact that you only need one Person not in the UH group to side with someone that would, presumably, not be in the OH group). Although the fact that the Storting comprises the Judiciary itself does present an issue, the Storting can rule on the Constitutionality of its own actions. This, in itself, makes it harder and disincentivizes the use of the courts to right a decision that was/is against the Fundamental Laws.

The courts have only been used once, by myself, where several issues were shown with the system we had then (and lead to some changes). However, the fact that our court system doesn't really work also leads people to not use it at all, even when it might otherwise be an alright option. Additionally, the status of the Courts, the rulings they produce, and their status within the legal system of Wintreath is undefined. As such it is not known if Judicial Decisions create precedent, cause Stare Decisis, or if they are only related to that specific case.  Additionally, it is not really stated whether or not the court can override acts of the Storting or if decisions of the court is above that of the Storting. Some of which these reforms would address.

We also seem to get on quite well without a judiciary, truth be told.

Yes, although part of that is due to the relatively tranquility that we currently find ourselves in, it would definitely be more useful if Govindia (or someone like him) was still around, however we also can not ensure that this tranquility to continue forever, and we may need it in the future.

It is, after all, better to be safe than sorry.

We have options to deal with a Govindia. We did deal with him. I fail to see the point.

Four years.

It took four years to deal with him completely. Three to get him mostly out of the region, and a final one to completely remove him through a process that is, honestly, political. Had the court systems been more functioning, you can definitely expect that at least one court case would have been filed against him.

Additionally, our methods of dealing with those people take some time to resolve, while a court case would probably take slightly shorter, and probably be perceived as fairer by some.

There is also the other part of courts as well, which is to establish legalities and to act as a check on the Storting. Currently the Storting is the arbiter of what is legal and what is not, which means that the Storting still has some authority to potentially bring concerning loopholes to the forefront, a better judiciary that has the ability to be more separate from the Storting is would help stave off opportunists and those that may wish to exploit our region for their own gains. Wintreath does have its enemies after all.

There is some truth to the vulnerability of the Storting. New Hyperion was able to amass significant influence over it, after all, and we could certainly have caused a bit of trouble, were we so inclined, but then again, I also see one thing that prevents something like that from happening altogether: the founder. Legal or not, if shit hit the fan, do you believe Wintermoot would just let it happen? It would be a minor annoyance at best, and then those involved would find themselves banned as quickly as they started to make trouble.

We are so far removed from gameplay that I fail to see the point, anyway. Were we to get involved with R&D again, it might make sense, although not even completely, because we were once heavily involved with it, and nothing like this ever happened.

If we want to ensure security for the courts, a much simpler change might prove more effective: let the Peers outnumber the Skrifa on any panels convened.

Sure, the argument that we'd better be safe than sorry is true, but actually getting anything of substance to pass for judicial reform is something only Wintermoot has been able to accomplish.

This doesn't address the fear that the Storting could be compromised either, though, because if an enemy faction can take over the Storting so easily, why would they not be able to take over any judicial proceedings, either?

For stuff like Gov, had Pengu not pulled out of his own move against Gov, he would likely have been gone ages ago. I don't see how that outcome would have been different with any number of courts. If Reon, you or me were on the UH at the time, sure, we could maybe have been chosen as judges and we would have declared our verdict that he ought to be revoked, but there would have been no guarantee that the person from the OH would have done the same.

Apart from that, now that we have experience with something like that, I do believe we'll deal with troublemakers sooner as a community, precisely because we know all the signs and now fully realise there are some who cannot be rehabilitated, and must instead be excised.

So in conclusion, the courts certainly should be functional if we ever plan to use them, and I would like to help get them more ready for any problems that could occur, particularly with issues where laws they passed come into dispute, but I disagree entirely with the rest of your reasoning.

There is some truth to the vulnerability of the Storting. New Hyperion was able to amass significant influence over it, after all, and we could certainly have caused a bit of trouble, were we so inclined, but then again, I also see one thing that prevents something like that from happening altogether: the founder. Legal or not, if shit hit the fan, do you believe Wintermoot would just let it happen? It would be a minor annoyance at best, and then those involved would find themselves banned as quickly as they started to make trouble.

Wintermoot is also quite the legalist as well, and I'm unsure he might have intervened as much, additionally it is still concerning none-the-less that while it COULD be legal, and be used against Wintreath by its enemies.

We are so far removed from gameplay that I fail to see the point, anyway. Were we to get involved with R&D again, it might make sense, although not even completely, because we were once heavily involved with it, and nothing like this ever happened.

We are less removed from GP than you think, I am an Adviser that was appointed largely for the purpose of keeping the Riksrad abreast of GP topics.  The truth is, is that our enemies are still eyeing us, watching us, and still hold grudges against us, Lazarus proved this.

If we want to ensure security for the courts, a much simpler change might prove more effective: let the Peers outnumber the Skrifa on any panels convened.

Sure, the argument that we'd better be safe than sorry is true, but actually getting anything of substance to pass for judicial reform is something only Wintermoot has been able to accomplish.

This doesn't address the fear that the Storting could be compromised either, though, because if an enemy faction can take over the Storting so easily, why would they not be able to take over any judicial proceedings, either?

First off increasing the Overhusen count would give the Monarch a bit too much control over the Judicial Proceedings than I would like. Next, taking control of the Judiciary would be a bit harder because of the nature of our non-standing Judiciary, it's randomly selected. However, the smaller the pool, the less people are needed.

With my first idea they would have to convince the Chief Magistrate that they would make a good Magistrate, and then convene a regular Panel, which could be contestable. Then the Justices would largely be randomly selected by the Citizenry, which is very large and would require a shit-ton of people to have even a decent change of being randomly selected. The Second Idea with one Justice being selected from the Citizenry would generally expand the pool too much to have any realistic chance at succeeding, much like how the Special Panel works in the first idea. The Third idea protects against this a bit less, however due to the inclusion of a few citizens, it makes it much harder because each vote is weighted, and requires them to infiltrate the whole Storting, and the Monarchy (or be randomly selected from for most of the citizens, which is VERY Improbable).

For stuff like Gov, had Pengu not pulled out of his own move against Gov, he would likely have been gone ages ago. I don't see how that outcome would have been different with any number of courts. If Reon, you or me were on the UH at the time, sure, we could maybe have been chosen as judges and we would have declared our verdict that he ought to be revoked, but there would have been no guarantee that the person from the OH would have done the same.

First off, you are somewhat misremebering history here. Pengu wanted a court case against Gov, but after learning the courts were not the best, he decided to go to through the Storting instead. Additionally, it likely would have had a different outcome since Pengu wouldn't have had to drop the entire thing, and the court could have still levied some punishment against Govindia that WASN'T revocation of citizenship.

Apart from that, now that we have experience with something like that, I do believe we'll deal with troublemakers sooner as a community, precisely because we know all the signs and now fully realise there are some who cannot be rehabilitated, and must instead be excised.

Do we though? I think you're being more generous here than you might think you are. I would not be surprised that something like Govindia might happen again, albeit perhaps less extreme, because of our community as we are a place of second chances and people will abuse that.

So in conclusion, the courts certainly should be functional if we ever plan to use them, and I would like to help get them more ready for any problems that could occur, particularly with issues where laws they passed come into dispute, but I disagree entirely with the rest of your reasoning.

Understandable, and I think we both agree that having functional courts would be useful for handling disputes in law. I also think we can both somewhat agree our current system is less than desirable.

Any other comments?